Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List: Your analysis completely ignores CP 6.206-208. You claim that none of the marks *ever *interact, and only *one *mark has staying power. But Peirce very clearly stated that *multiple *lines appear, persist, and together form "a *new *line, the envelope of those others," such that they "gradually tend to lose their individuality ... Many such reacting systems may spring up in the original continuum; and each of these may itself act as a first line from which a larger system may be built, in which it in turn will merge its individuality." These larger systems are the many "Platonic worlds," and it is not until *this *point in the story that out of one of them "is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be." *This *is where I place the Big Bang--not "the development of 'staying power'" much earlier in the narrative. Peirce never confines the habit of persistence to one mark, or even one set of marks. He never says or implies that the many reacting systems or the many Platonic worlds "dissipate" after they have developed the habit of persistence--not even once our particular existing universe appears on the scene. Hence your "reading" is quite simply *not consistent with the text itself*, which means that it is not a *reading *at all--it is your imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework. Do I have my own biases? Sure, but I readily acknowledge them, and I am making a good-faith effort to understand *what Peirce meant* based on *what he actually wrote*. I frankly find it amusing that you think I am "upset and angry" about any of this. I am quite comfortable with my assessment here, and once again leave it to the good judgment of the List community to separate the wheat from the chaff. Regards, Jon On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before - > > Peirce was quite explicit about the 'Zero, the Nothing'..see 1.412, > 6.217. I do not read this as a set of Platonic worlds, which, after all, > have some identity. I read this state as 'absolutely undefined and > unlimited possibility" 6.217. > > As I've said, i see the blackboard as POST Big Bang, with sudden flashes > of chalkmarks on it...unrelated to each other"the mark is a mere > accident, and as such may be erased. It will not interfere with another > mark drawn in quite another way. There need be no consistency between the > two. But no further progress beyond this can be made, until a mark will > *stay* for a little while; that is, until some beginning of a* habit* > has been established by virtue of which the accident acquires some > incipient staying quality, some tendency toward consistency" 6.204. > > I read the above as Peirce outlining a POST BigBang number of 'possibles', > which could be viewed as those Platonic ideas...but...'no progress beyond > this can be made...until ONE mark will *stay* for a while; i.e., takes on > Thirdness..and this establishes our particular physico-chemical universe. > > So- my reading of this is that many 'marks' [possible world modes] can > emerge but have no *staying* power...until one such mark DOES develop > this power..and as such..its consistency makes it dominant as our > universe's typology of matter/mind. > > I am not referring to any 'merged' set of chalkmarks - I am simply reading > the texts as they are. > And again - I don't see that the development of 'staying power', which > develops within Thirdness can be defined as 'the Big Bang'. The 'Big Bang' > is not Thirdness! Therefore, I don't see that these chalkmarks are Pre-Big > Bang, but I read them as POST Big Bang. > > And Jon - don't you have YOUR set of biases within which you read the > texts? Of course, others are aware that we interpret the texts differently. > I suppose I'm trying to say that I really wonder why you are so upset and > angry about the fact that others don't always accept your view and your > analysis. > > I repeat - others may read these texts in a different interpretation, but, > there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we > can come to a definitive answer among the few on this list who actually > comment... > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > ET: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, list: "I do not understand you," is the phrase of an angry man. *http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html <http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html>* Hth, Jerry R On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before - > > Peirce was quite explicit about the 'Zero, the Nothing'..see 1.412, > 6.217. I do not read this as a set of Platonic worlds, which, after all, > have some identity. I read this state as 'absolutely undefined and > unlimited possibility" 6.217. > > As I've said, i see the blackboard as POST Big Bang, with sudden flashes > of chalkmarks on it...unrelated to each other"the mark is a mere > accident, and as such may be erased. It will not interfere with another > mark drawn in quite another way. There need be no consistency between the > two. But no further progress beyond this can be made, until a mark will > *stay* for a little while; that is, until some beginning of a* habit* > has been established by virtue of which the accident acquires some > incipient staying quality, some tendency toward consistency" 6.204. > > I read the above as Peirce outlining a POST BigBang number of 'possibles', > which could be viewed as those Platonic ideas...but...'no progress beyond > this can be made...until ONE mark will *stay* for a while; i.e., takes on > Thirdness..and this establishes our particular physico-chemical universe. > > So- my reading of this is that many 'marks' [possible world modes] can > emerge but have no *staying* power...until one such mark DOES develop > this power..and as such..its consistency makes it dominant as our > universe's typology of matter/mind. > > I am not referring to any 'merged' set of chalkmarks - I am simply reading > the texts as they are. > And again - I don't see that the development of 'staying power', which > develops within Thirdness can be defined as 'the Big Bang'. The 'Big Bang' > is not Thirdness! Therefore, I don't see that these chalkmarks are Pre-Big > Bang, but I read them as POST Big Bang. > > And Jon - don't you have YOUR set of biases within which you read the > texts? Of course, others are aware that we interpret the texts differently. > I suppose I'm trying to say that I really wonder why you are so upset and > angry about the fact that others don't always accept your view and your > analysis. > > I repeat - others may read these texts in a different interpretation, but, > there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we > can come to a definitive answer among the few on this list who actually > comment... > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > ET: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang? > > > I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang. You take it to be > the beginning of *everything*; before the Big Bang, there was *nothing*. > The real question is, what would *Peirce *have taken it to be? I think > that the much more likely answer is when "this Universe of Actual > Existence" emerged from "the whole universe of true and real possibilities" > as "a discontinuous mark--like a line figure drawn on the area of the > blackboard" (NEM 4:345, RLT 162). So the Platonic worlds must have been > *before > *the Big Bang, because they come *before *the existence of our *particular > *universe, and all of them but one have *no connection* with the latter > whatsoever. > > ET: But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began > to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated. > > > Where do you find this in CP 6.203-208? Where in that passage does it say > that only *one *set of chalk marks began to take habits? On the > contrary, it states quite plainly, "Many such reacting systems may spring > up," and that we are "to conceive that there are many" Platonic worlds. > Where does it say that one of these "became dominant" over the others? > Where does it suggest that *any *merged aggregation of chalk marks, > having developed the habit of persistence, would have--or even could > have--"dissipated"? This is not a legitimate *reading *of the text, it > is the imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework on it. > > ET
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before - Peirce was quite explicit about the 'Zero, the Nothing'..see 1.412, 6.217. I do not read this as a set of Platonic worlds, which, after all, have some identity. I read this state as 'absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility" 6.217. As I've said, i see the blackboard as POST Big Bang, with sudden flashes of chalkmarks on it...unrelated to each other"the mark is a mere accident, and as such may be erased. It will not interfere with another mark drawn in quite another way. There need be no consistency between the two. But no further progress beyond this can be made, until a mark will stay for a little while; that is, until some beginning of a habit has been established by virtue of which the accident acquires some incipient staying quality, some tendency toward consistency" 6.204. I read the above as Peirce outlining a POST BigBang number of 'possibles', which could be viewed as those Platonic ideas...but...'no progress beyond this can be made...until ONE mark will stay for a while; i.e., takes on Thirdness..and this establishes our particular physico-chemical universe. So- my reading of this is that many 'marks' [possible world modes] can emerge but have no staying power...until one such mark DOES develop this power..and as such..its consistency makes it dominant as our universe's typology of matter/mind. I am not referring to any 'merged' set of chalkmarks - I am simply reading the texts as they are. And again - I don't see that the development of 'staying power', which develops within Thirdness can be defined as 'the Big Bang'. The 'Big Bang' is not Thirdness! Therefore, I don't see that these chalkmarks are Pre-Big Bang, but I read them as POST Big Bang. And Jon - don't you have YOUR set of biases within which you read the texts? Of course, others are aware that we interpret the texts differently. I suppose I'm trying to say that I really wonder why you are so upset and angry about the fact that others don't always accept your view and your analysis. I repeat - others may read these texts in a different interpretation, but, there is no need for anger at such differences. And - I don't think that we can come to a definitive answer among the few on this list who actually comment... Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L ; Helmut Raulien Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang? I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang. You take it to be the beginning of everything; before the Big Bang, there was nothing. The real question is, what would Peirce have taken it to be? I think that the much more likely answer is when "this Universe of Actual Existence" emerged from "the whole universe of true and real possibilities" as "a discontinuous mark--like a line figure drawn on the area of the blackboard" (NEM 4:345, RLT 162). So the Platonic worlds must have been before the Big Bang, because they come before the existence of our particular universe, and all of them but one have no connection with the latter whatsoever. ET: But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated. Where do you find this in CP 6.203-208? Where in that passage does it say that only one set of chalk marks began to take habits? On the contrary, it states quite plainly, "Many such reacting systems may spring up," and that we are "to conceive that there are many" Platonic worlds. Where does it say that one of these "became dominant" over the others? Where does it suggest that any merged aggregation of chalk marks, having developed the habit of persistence, would have--or even could have--"dissipated"? This is not a legitimate reading of the text, it is the imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework on it. ET: I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the texts differently ... We should not block the way of inquiry by assuming that, just because we read the texts differently, there is no correct (or incorrect) way to read the texts. ET: ... but I do think that we on the list should be aware that there are different views on this issue Do you really think that anyone on the List is not aware of this by now? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: Gary R, Helmut: The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEF
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List: ET: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang? I guess that depends how one understands the Big Bang. You take it to be the beginning of *everything*; before the Big Bang, there was *nothing*. The real question is, what would *Peirce *have taken it to be? I think that the much more likely answer is when "this Universe of Actual Existence" emerged from "the whole universe of true and real possibilities" as "a discontinuous mark--like a line figure drawn on the area of the blackboard" (NEM 4:345, RLT 162). So the Platonic worlds must have been *before *the Big Bang, because they come *before *the existence of our *particular *universe, and all of them but one have *no connection* with the latter whatsoever. ET: But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated. Where do you find this in CP 6.203-208? Where in that passage does it say that only *one *set of chalk marks began to take habits? On the contrary, it states quite plainly, "Many such reacting systems may spring up," and that we are "to conceive that there are many" Platonic worlds. Where does it say that one of these "became dominant" over the others? Where does it suggest that *any *merged aggregation of chalk marks, having developed the habit of persistence, would have--or even could have--"dissipated"? This is not a legitimate *reading *of the text, it is the imposition of a predetermined conceptual framework on it. ET: I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the texts differently ... We should not block the way of inquiry by assuming that, just because we read the texts differently, there is no correct (or incorrect) way to read the texts. ET: ... but I do think that we on the list should be aware that there are different views on this issue Do you really think that anyone on the List is *not *aware of this by now? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Edwina Taborskywrote: > Gary R, Helmut: > > The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big > Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S read them as BEFORE. In > my reading, before the BigBang, there was Nothing, not even Platonic > worlds. But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set > began to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated. > > I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the > texts differently, but I do think that we on the list should be aware that > there are different views on this issue. > > Edwina > - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, Helmut, Jon S, Jeff, John, Clark, List, In a passage preceding the one I recently quoted twice, Peirce writes: [A]s a rule the continuum has been derived from a more general continuum, a continnum of higher generality. >From this point of view we must suppose that the existing universe with all its arbitrary secondness is an offshoot from, or an arbitrary determination, of a world of ideas, a Platonic world [. . .] [Note: *not* an existential world but "a world of ideas, a Platonic world."] If that is correct, we cannot suppose the process of derivation, a process which extends from before time and from before logic, we cannot suppose that it began elsewhere than in the utter vagueness of completely undetermined and dimensionless potentiality. [Note: "before time" in "utter vagueness" not of nothing but of "completely undetermined and dimensionsless potentiality."] The evolutionary process is, therefore, not a mere evolution of the *existing universe*, but rather a process by which the very Platonic forms themselves have become or are becoming developed. [Note: the topic here is of an evolutionary process *not *merely "of the *existing universe,*" emphasis in the original.] We shall naturally suppose, of course, that existence is a stage of evolution. *This existence* is presumably but a special *existence*. We need not suppose that every form needs for its evolution to emerge into this world, but only that it needs to enter into *some* theater of reactions of which it is one. [Note: *This existence* is presumably but a special *existence;"* further*, *consider the language he uses of the possibility of emerging *not* into this world--our Universe--but merely "*some* theater of reactions"--I have commented elsewhere that this suggests a possibly multi-universe theory. GR] The evolution of forms begins, or at any rate, has for an early stage of it, a vague potentiaility, and that either is or is followed by a continuum of forms having a multitude of dimensions too great for the individual dimensions to be distinct. It must be a contraction of the vagueness of that potentiality of *everything in general and of nothing in particular* that the world of forms comes forth. [emphasis added, RLT, 259] So, as I read this, it is not here a matter of 'nothing at all' as Edwina claims, but the "potentiality of everything in general and nothing in paritcular" that is still but merely the ground from which, *not* this *existential world*, but "the world of forms" can emerge. I'd call that *way *pre-Big Bang. One can, I suppose, try to position these comments within the procrustean bed of *our* special, existential, post-Big Bang world in which Edwina would try to fit it, but to me such a reading flies in the face of this passage, the one I was earlier quoting, the whole of this lecture, and much else that Peirce wrote (including, the N.A.) Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R, Helmut: > > The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big > Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S read them as BEFORE. In > my reading, before the BigBang, there was Nothing, not even Platonic > worlds. But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set > began to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated. > > I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the > texts differently, but I do think that we on the list should be aware that > there are different views on this issue. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 4:04 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Helmut, List, > > Whatever you or Edwina may think, whatever the 'truth' of the matter may > prove to be (if any such proof were possible, which I greatly doubt), > Peirce wrote *this* (embedded in an argument which makes his position-- > that there is a Platonic cosmos from which this, shall we say, Aristotelian > one issues--quite clear). > > Peirce: "[A]ll this, be it remembered, *is not of the order of the > existing universe,* but is merely a Platonic world of which we are, > therefore, to conceive that there are many, both coordinated and > subordinated to one another until *finally one of these Platonic worlds > is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we > happen to be*." (RLT, 263, emphasis added). >
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Gary R, Helmut: The question is: Are the Platonic worlds BEFORE or AFTER the so-called Big Bang? I read them as AFTER while Gary R and Jon S read them as BEFORE. In my reading, before the BigBang, there was Nothing, not even Platonic worlds. But after, there were multiple 'chalk marks' - but only ONE set began to take habits and became dominant, while the others dissipated. I don't think that this dispute can be 'settled' because we do read the texts differently, but I do think that we on the list should be aware that there are different views on this issue. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 4:04 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Helmut, List, Whatever you or Edwina may think, whatever the 'truth' of the matter may prove to be (if any such proof were possible, which I greatly doubt), Peirce wrote this (embedded in an argument which makes his position-- that there is a Platonic cosmos from which this, shall we say, Aristotelian one issues--quite clear). Peirce: "[A]ll this, be it remembered, is not of the order of the existing universe, but is merely a Platonic world of which we are, therefore, to conceive that there are many, both coordinated and subordinated to one another until finally one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be." (RLT, 263, emphasis added). The immediate question as I see it is: How did Peirce conceive of this matter? I would highly recommend that anyone looking into that question read carefully RLT, esp. 261-264. Best, Gary R Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690 On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: Edwina, list, I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of everything, such as philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of metaphors, whatever. So there can not be a "pre" of it, the less as the big bang is said to be not only the origin of space, but of time too. Lest you suggest a meta-time, in a meta-universe, but then the problem of beginning is merely postponed to that: Did the meta-universe come from a meta-big-bang? I only have two possible explanations for this problem of origin/beginning: Either there was no beginning/creation, and no big bang (I had supposed a multi-bubble-universe some weeks ago) , or there is a circle of creation, like: A creates B, B creates C, C creates A. But this would mean, that creation is atemporal, otherwise it would not work. But I like it, and maybe it is good for some quite funny science-fiction story. But perhaps it is not far fetched: Creation is everywhere, is "God", and it forms circular attractors of recreation. Stop! This is getting weird, I have to think some more about it first. Best, Helmut 04. November 2016 um 19:44 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> Gary R - again, it is my strong sense that I am accurately representing Peirce's views on this issue. I don't see that I disagree with him at all - but I do disagree with you and Jon on this issue [and, obviously, on theistic issues as well]. That is - I don't see a Nothing, which is to say, the pre BigBang world, as a set of Platonic worlds. If this were the case, then, it would not be nothing but would be sets of ideal potentialities. Instead, it is nothing, 'pure zero', pure freedom, no variety of Platonic worlds which after all, establish different perspectives, it is "absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility' ...not a SET of Platonic worlds. [1.412, 6.217]. Then, with the BigBang, this set up the Blackboard 'the original vague potentiality' and moved into that set of multiple possible Platonic worlds within the phase of Firstness and Secondness. At this time, these 'bits' were without habits [Thirdness] - that's what provides them with their potentiality; it is possible that many chalkmarks appeared. "Many such reacting systems may spring up in the original continuum; and each of these may itself acts as a first line from which a larger system may be built, in which it in turn will merge its individuality" 6.207. This is POST BigBang. With these multiple sets - the universe could have gone anywhere; some of those 'bits' could have dissipated; others could have emerged; some could have stayed. But THEN - came the development of habits, Thirdness - and these habits established our particular world rather than one of the oth
Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon, list, Yes, that is what I suspect too: It is not about chronologic: Creation, God, necessity, causality. Due to our limited human experience we cannot see these things other than in time flow, chronologically, so likely with a beginning. But maybe causation and time flow are not so strictly connected with each other as we think! Maybe they are two different things, that merely happen to occur parallelly just for us, but not necessarily for, like, God, or whoever. Best, Helmut Freitag, 04. November 2016 um 21:42 Uhr "Jon Alan Schmidt"wrote: Helmut, List: The Big Bang is called a "singularity" because it is the point in the past when the mathematical equations that scientists currently take as governing our existing universe break down; i.e., the event when those laws of nature came into being, assuming that they have remained essentially unchanged since then. (Peirce, of course, held that they have evolved, and are still subject to minute spontaneous variations.) Consequently, as Gary R. has been highlighting by quoting CP 6.208, if the Big Bang has a place in Peirce's cosmology at all, it can only correspond to the beginning of our existing universe. Everything that comes before that in Peirce's blackboard narrative--the blackboard itself, the initial chalk mark, the aggregation of multiple marks into reacting systems, and the merging of those systems into larger Platonic worlds--must precede the Big Bang. Now, granted, since the Big Bang corresponds to the beginning of time, "precede" has to be taken in some way other than strictly chronologically; but as Clark Goble has affirmed, this problem of language arises no matter what words we use when trying to discuss things "before" time began. The only way to avoid the kind of circularity that you describe below is to recognize the necessity of necessary Being--Ens necessarium--which Peirce explicitly identified as God in "A Neglected Argument." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: Edwina, list, I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of everything, such as philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of metaphors, whatever. So there can not be a "pre" of it, the less as the big bang is said to be not only the origin of space, but of time too. Lest you suggest a meta-time, in a meta-universe, but then the problem of beginning is merely postponed to that: Did the meta-universe come from a meta-big-bang? I only have two possible explanations for this problem of origin/beginning: Either there was no beginning/creation, and no big bang (I had supposed a multi-bubble-universe some weeks ago) , or there is a circle of creation, like: A creates B, B creates C, C creates A. But this would mean, that creation is atemporal, otherwise it would not work. But I like it, and maybe it is good for some quite funny science-fiction story. But perhaps it is not far fetched: Creation is everywhere, is "God", and it forms circular attractors of recreation. Stop! This is getting weird, I have to think some more about it first. Best, Helmut - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Gary R, Jon S, List, The pages you and Jon are examining (RLT 261-4) are quite challenging. The guiding aims of the lecture, he tells us on the first page, are (1) to work out the logical difficulties involved in the conception of continuity, and then (2) to address the metaphysical difficulties associated with the conception. What is needed, he says, is a better method of reasoning about continuity in philosophy generally. It looks to me like the mathematical survey of the relationships he notes between topology, projective geometry and metrical geometries are being used to set up the arguments. Likewise, the phenomenological thought experiment involving the cave of odors is also doing some work. The mathematical examples he offers are meant, I am supposing, to offer us with some nice case studies that we can use to study the methods that have been taking shape in the 19th century in order to handle mathematical questions about continuity in topology and projective geometry. One goal of this discussion, I assume, is to analyze these examples in order to see how those mathematical methods might be applied to the logical difficulties involved in working with the conception. Then, the phenomenological experiment is designed as an exercise that helps to limber us up for the challenges we face. The goal is to provide us with some exercises of the imagination in which we are being asked to explore arrangements of odors in spaces that are markedly different from our typical experience of how things that are spatially arranged. One of the key ideas, I believe, is that this imaginative exploration does not involve any kind of optical ray of light or any physical straight bar that might be used to apply projective or metrical standards to the spatial arrangements. The big conclusion he draws from both the mathematical and phenomenological investigations is logical in character: "A continuum may have any discrete multitude of dimensions whatsoever. If the multiude of dimensions surpasses all discrete multitudes there cease to be any distinct dimensions. I have not as yet obtained any logically distinct conception of such a continuum. Provisionally, I identify it with the uralt vague generality of the most abstract potentiality." (253-4) On page 257, he makes the transition from the attempt to draw on mathematics and phenomenology for the sake of addressing the logical difficulties associated with the concept of continuity, and the then takes up the metaphysical difficulties. Before turning to the questions of theological metaphysics that he takes up on 258-9 or the example of the diagrams on the blackboard shortly thereafter, let me ask a question. In the Additament to the Neglected Argument, he makes use of the conception of Super-order. I am wondering if there is anything in his discussion of mathematics and phenomenology in the first part of this last lecture in RLT that might help us to clarify this conception of Super-order? What I'd like to do is to work towards a more adequate understanding of that conception and then see if it could be used to shed some light on the points he is making on pages 258-64--or vice versa. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Gary Richmond [gary.richm...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 1:04 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Helmut, List, Whatever you or Edwina may think, whatever the 'truth' of the matter may prove to be (if any such proof were possible, which I greatly doubt), Peirce wrote this (embedded in an argument which makes his position-- that there is a Platonic cosmos from which this, shall we say, Aristotelian one issues--quite clear). Peirce: "[A]ll this, be it remembered, is not of the order of the existing universe, but is merely a Platonic world of which we are, therefore, to conceive that there are many, both coordinated and subordinated to one another until finally one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be." (RLT, 263, emphasis added). The immediate question as I see it is: How did Peirce conceive of this matter? I would highly recommend that anyone looking into that question read carefully RLT, esp. 261-264. Best, Gary R [Gary Richmond] Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690 On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de<mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de>> wrote: Edwina, list, I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physi
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Helmut, List: The Big Bang is called a "singularity" because it is the point in the past when the mathematical equations that scientists currently take as governing our existing universe break down; i.e., the event when those laws of nature came into being, *assuming *that they have remained essentially unchanged since then. (Peirce, of course, held that they have *evolved*, and are still subject to minute spontaneous variations.) Consequently, as Gary R. has been highlighting by quoting CP 6.208, if the Big Bang has a place in Peirce's cosmology *at all*, it can *only *correspond to the beginning of our *existing *universe. Everything that comes *before *that in Peirce's blackboard narrative--the blackboard itself, the initial chalk mark, the aggregation of multiple marks into reacting systems, and the merging of those systems into larger Platonic worlds--must *precede *the Big Bang. Now, granted, since the Big Bang corresponds to the *beginning *of time, "precede" has to be taken in some way other than strictly chronologically; but as Clark Goble has affirmed, this problem of language arises no matter what words we use when trying to discuss things "before" time began. The only way to avoid the kind of circularity that you describe below is to recognize the necessity of necessary Being--*Ens necessarium*--which Peirce explicitly identified as God in "A Neglected Argument." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulienwrote: > Edwina, list, > I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with > Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I > guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of > everything, such as philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of > metaphors, whatever. So there can not be a "pre" of it, the less as the big > bang is said to be not only the origin of space, but of time too. Lest you > suggest a meta-time, in a meta-universe, but then the problem of beginning > is merely postponed to that: Did the meta-universe come from a > meta-big-bang? I only have two possible explanations for this problem of > origin/beginning: Either there was no beginning/creation, and no big bang > (I had supposed a multi-bubble-universe some weeks ago) , or there is a > circle of creation, like: A creates B, B creates C, C creates A. But this > would mean, that creation is atemporal, otherwise it would not work. But I > like it, and maybe it is good for some quite funny science-fiction story. > But perhaps it is not far fetched: Creation is everywhere, is "God", and it > forms circular attractors of recreation. Stop! This is getting weird, I > have to think some more about it first. > Best, > Helmut > - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
t; emergence of matter/mind...and are not separate from it. > > Therefore - you and Jon, and others, may certainly reject my reading of > Peirce, just as I reject yours and Jon's - but, I don't think we are at the > stage where we can definitely say that only ONE reading is The Accurate > One. I offer my reading; some on the list may agree; some may not. That is > as far as a scholarly list can go, I think. > > Edwina > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 1:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Edwina, Jon S, List, > > I certainly do not intend to get into a long (or even a short) discussion > with you, Edwina, on this as both your position and Jon's (and mine) have > been rather thoroughly and repeatedly articulated. I must say, however, > that I do not see your "reading" of the blackboard passages as 'fair > minded' at all, but rather it seems to me to impose your own conceptual > framework on Peirce's very different one. > > For example, at RLT, 263, in the midst of the long and complex blackboard > discussion, RLT, 261-4, which blackboard Peirce himself refers to as "a > sort of Diagram of the original vague potentiality," RLT, 261), he comments > (and I've pointed to this passage before): > > > "[A]ll this, be it remembered, *is not of the order of the existing > universe,* but is merely a Platonic world of which we are, therefore, to > conceive that there are many, both coordinated and subordinated to one > another until *finally one of these Platonic worlds is differentiated the > particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be*." (RLT, > 263, emphasis added). > > > Now you may disagree with Peirce in this matter, but this is what he > wrote--the blackboard diagram would seem to represent what he no doubt > believed to be the character of the cosmos *before* "one of these > Platonic worlds is differentiated the particular actual universe of > existence in which we happen to be," that is, before what corresponds to > the Big Bang. > > It is my strong sense that Jon has consistently accurately presented > Peirce's views as they appear in the 1898 lecture, and that your remarks > *contra* his do not represent Peirce's clearly articulated views (as, for > example, given in the quotation above), but rather your own. They seem to > me less an interpretation than a misreading of Peirce, one which your > conceptual framework apparently requires. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690* > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: >> >> Gary R, list: >> >> Well, I consider myself a 'fair-minded reader of Peirce' and I certainly >> don't agree with Jon S's view that the blackboard is pre-Big Bang and that >> the three Categories are pre-Big Bang, with Thirdness primordial. >> >> Of course the blackboard is a metaphor - set out as a diagram...but that >> diagram is a metaphor of what we assume is that 'original vague >> potentiality or at any rate of some early stage of its determination'. >> 6.203. As I said in my earlier post today, my reading is that this >> blackboard is POST Big Bang, which is why it is a 'continuum of some >> indefinite multitude of dimensions'. 6.203. This is NOT the same as the >> pre Big Bang Zeroness - which is NOTHING. >> >> And by 'continuum', I certainly don't see this as Thirdness, for >> Thirdness is a continuum of *some particular habits*, not just a >> 'continuum and certainly not of 'indefinite multitude of dimensions. The >> very nature of Thirdness is its function to constrain novelty and insert >> morphological habits. >> >> As for quibbling about whether the chalk mark is a point or a line - >> that's irrelevant. It is a unique 'bit' of matter/mind - that is >> differentiated from what-it-is-not ["the limit between the black surface >> and the white surface} 6.203]. It's the differentiation from >> 'what-it-is-not' that is important, for this is obviously Secondness. >> >> The first chalkmark exhibits only Firstness [its novel appearance] and >> Secondness [its differentiation from the blackness] but would only exhibit >> Thirdness if it stayed 'as it is' and if other chalkmarks appear and they >> deve
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Dear Gary, list: Alternatively, I would recommend examining what Peirce thought of Spinoza before we go down the road you suggest: Spinoza’s chief work, the “Ethics”, is an exposition of the idea of the absolute, with a monistic theory of the correspondence between mind and matter, and applications to the philosophy of living. It is an *excessively abstruse doctrine, much misunderstood*, and too complicated for brief exposition… Spinoza is described as a pantheist; he identifies God and Nature, but does not mean by Nature what is ordinarily meant. Some sayings of Spinoza are frequently quoted in literature. One of these is *omnis determinatio est negation*, “all specification involves exclusion”; another is that matters must be considered *sub specie aeternitatis*, “under their essential aspects.” Hth, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Gary Richmondwrote: > Jon, Edwina, List, > > I think that there are in fact several, perhaps many ways of being > Christian, from more exoteric, traditional positions (doctrinaire, > dogmatic, Bible centered, etc.) to those considerably less so, that is, > more esoteric positions (mystical in, for example, the tradition of > Eckhard, such as the Cosmic Christ idea as Matthew Fox has elucidated it) > > Be that as it may, if we are to have a list discussion on this religious > topic I would hope that it would center on (1) whether or not Peirce was in > fact a Christian (my own view is that he was) and, if so, (2) what sort of > a Christian he was (as I've already commented in another thread, I think > that he was a non-traditional Christian--he once referred to his views as > buddheo-Christian, but that, I believe, should be taken in context). > > I should add that I do not necessarily think that it would be productive > to begin such a discussion until at least after we've more or less > completed the discussion of Peirce's cosmological ideas, which, as Jon > suggested correctly, I believe, ought precede the discussion of (his) > religious views. But, in any event, it seems to me important that we more > or less restrict such a discussion to* Peirce's religious views,* and > that it would definitely be advantageous to change the Subject line if and > when we begin such a discussion. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < > jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Edwina, List: >> >> If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then >> your approach makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if we take seriously >> the hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal >> born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently. My point >> was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after >> predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so. If that >> is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if >> not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky >> wrote: >> >>> Jon, list: >>> >>> Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its >>> startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--" >>> >>> I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is >>> unique to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as >>> 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal >>> children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found >>> in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism] >>> >>> I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and >>> Roman religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't >>> find such influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th >>> century economic reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands >>> by the Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story. >>> >>> I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism >>> is something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in >>> this area. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >> >> >> - >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon, Edwina, List, I think that there are in fact several, perhaps many ways of being Christian, from more exoteric, traditional positions (doctrinaire, dogmatic, Bible centered, etc.) to those considerably less so, that is, more esoteric positions (mystical in, for example, the tradition of Eckhard, such as the Cosmic Christ idea as Matthew Fox has elucidated it) Be that as it may, if we are to have a list discussion on this religious topic I would hope that it would center on (1) whether or not Peirce was in fact a Christian (my own view is that he was) and, if so, (2) what sort of a Christian he was (as I've already commented in another thread, I think that he was a non-traditional Christian--he once referred to his views as buddheo-Christian, but that, I believe, should be taken in context). I should add that I do not necessarily think that it would be productive to begin such a discussion until at least after we've more or less completed the discussion of Peirce's cosmological ideas, which, as Jon suggested correctly, I believe, ought precede the discussion of (his) religious views. But, in any event, it seems to me important that we more or less restrict such a discussion to* Peirce's religious views,* and that it would definitely be advantageous to change the Subject line if and when we begin such a discussion. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidtwrote: > Edwina, List: > > If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then your > approach makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if we take seriously the > hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal > born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently. My point > was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after > predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so. If that > is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if > not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky > wrote: > >> Jon, list: >> >> Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its >> startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--" >> >> I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique >> to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as >> 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal >> children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found >> in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism] >> >> I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and >> Roman religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't >> find such influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th >> century economic reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands >> by the Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story. >> >> I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is >> something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this >> area. >> >> Edwina >> > > > - > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List: If we presuppose that all religions are purely human constructs, then your approach makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if we take seriously the hypothesis that Jesus is God Himself in human flesh--not a mere "mortal born of gods"--then we will obviously proceed very differently. My point was that one deductive consequence of that premiss is that Jesus, after predicting that he would rise from the dead, would in fact do so. If that is what actually happened, then the hypothesis is strongly corroborated; if not, then the hypothesis is definitively falsified. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Edwina Taborskywrote: > Jon, list: > > Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its > startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--" > > I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique > to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as > 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal > children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found > in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism] > > I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and Roman > religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't find such > influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th century economic > reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands by the > Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story. > > I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is > something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this > area. > > Edwina > - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon, list: Jon wrote: "With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--" I don't think that the concept of 'god entering into actuality' is unique to Christianity. It's basic to many ancient beliefs [loosely term as 'pagan'] about the gods. Zeus, for instance, had quite a few mortal children. Mortals born of gods [and that includes virgin births] are found in these Greek-Roman tales and other religions {Hinduism, Buddhism] I'd therefore suggest that this shows the influence of the Greek and Roman religions on Christianity - whereas, to my knowledge, one doesn't find such influence in Judaism. And, in my view, Islam is a 7th century economic reaction to the settling of pastoral nomadic grazing lands by the Roman-Byzantine empire...but that's another story. I think that the transition from animism, polytheism etc to monotheism is something worthy of study - and of course - there is a lot of work in this area. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Gary Richmond ; h.raul...@gmx.de Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Gary, Helmut, List: I think that questions of religion come after the kinds of cosmological questions that we have been addressing lately. Once we establish the necessity of God's Reality for the existence of our universe, we can then start inquiring about the details. As Peirce wrote in "A Neglected Argument" ... CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself more and more, and without limit (CP 6.466, EP 2:439) Peirce saw humanity's primary role in God's ongoing creative activity as learning more and more about both God and God's creations--i.e., the contents of the three Universes of Experience--thus contributing to the summum bonum, which is the development of Reason (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903). However, since God is infinite, it will take us all of eternity to get to know Him. With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--into our existing universe--in the person of Jesus. His claim to divinity thus offers us a significantly more definite concept of God for our consideration; and if he truly rose from the dead, as his followers have been asserting for nearly 2,000 years, then that claim has been decisively validated. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: Helmut, List, Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and inter-religion for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the distinction 'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a discussion as we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as the esoteric dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction. And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague' concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least quasi-scientific--but certainly, logical--goal in mind. In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes tolerance of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often lacking in especially our public discourse. But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am currently dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. I'll want to think further on these matters over the next few days, but will probably have little time to respond online. Best, Gary R Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690 On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: Gary, list, I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand, people use "God&q
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
I think John who wrote of God as the Word can be helpful in relation to this subject. Peirce was no stranger to the idea that we talk to one within us. If one surmises that this is not an uncommon phenomenon and is itself worth investigation one might also surmise that whoever God is remains a mystery in part because this entity is identical with reality (aka creation in toto) unfolding as we speak. The differentiation between Word and Creator makes it possible to surmise a connection that is verbal but which does not need to assume that God is infinite or omniscient or all powerful -- the common assumptions. Rather God would be the force behind the word that is the object of our efforts to communicate. Much talk about God is talk about what we don't and can't know for the simple reason that reality is unfolding, is continuous, and heads somewhere. i Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidtwrote: > Gary, Helmut, List: > > I think that questions of religion come *after *the kinds of cosmological > questions that we have been addressing lately. Once we establish the > necessity of God's Reality for the existence of our universe, we can *then > *start inquiring about the details. As Peirce wrote in "A Neglected > Argument" ... > > CSP: The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an > infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, > supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves > the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as > true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself > more and more, and without limit (CP 6.466, EP 2:439) > > > Peirce saw humanity's primary role in God's ongoing creative activity as > learning more and more about both God and God's creations--i.e., the > contents of the three Universes of Experience--thus contributing to the > *summum > bonum*, which is the development of Reason (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903). > However, since God is infinite, it will take us all of eternity to get to > know Him. > > With that in mind, a unique aspect of Christianity is its startling > affirmation that God Himself entered into Actuality--into our existing > universe--in the person of Jesus. His claim to divinity thus offers us a > significantly more definite concept of God for our consideration; and if he > truly rose from the dead, as his followers have been asserting for nearly > 2,000 years, then that claim has been decisively validated. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gary Richmond > wrote: > >> Helmut, List, >> >> Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and >> inter-religion for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the >> distinction 'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a >> discussion as we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as >> the esoteric dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, >> Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, >> etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction. >> >> And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious >> practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague' >> concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a >> more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in >> the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), >> it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least >> *quasi*-scientific--but >> certainly, logical--goal in mind. >> >> In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes >> tolerance of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often >> lacking in especially our public discourse. >> >> But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am >> currently dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. >> I'll want to think further on these matters over the next few days, but >> will probably have little time to respond online. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: >> >>> Gary, list, >>> I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other >>> hand, people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense >>> of reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have >>> to visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Helmut, List, Thanks for this, Helmut. When I was studying comparative and inter-religion for about a decade a couple of decades ago, I found the distinction 'esoteric' vs 'exoteric' of help, for example, in such a discussion as we're having. Your pointing to what some scholars refer to as the esoteric dimension of religion (Sufism in Islam, Kabbala in Judaism, Meister Eckhard and certain other mystics in Christianity, Zen in Buddhism, etc.) would seem to reflect that distinction. And I believe that you are also quite right to point to the religious practices of probably many people who want something other than a 'vague' concept of God to, as for example, you mentioned, to pray to, namely, a more personal God. There are places where Peirce suggests as much, while in the N.A. and the early cosmological discussions, e.g., that in RLT (1898), it seems to me that he has a somewhat different, at least *quasi*-scientific--but certainly, logical--goal in mind. In any event, religious tolerance (which in my thinking includes tolerance of agnosticism and atheism) is for me a desideratum, one often lacking in especially our public discourse. But these are just a few idle thoughts thrown off quickly as I am currently dealing with some personal matters which need my full attention. I'll want to think further on these matters over the next few days, but will probably have little time to respond online. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Helmut Raulienwrote: > Gary, list, > I see the necessity for leaving the God-concept vague. On the other hand, > people use "God" for somebody to pray to, for religion in the sense of > reconnection with something spiritual and all-encompassing. So they have to > visualize God as non-vague to get a feeling of connection, I think. So one > who wishes to pray has to decide, which of the many varieties of God Clark > wrote about to imagine, eg. impassive or passionate. I guess the solution > of this dilemma may be to have the confidence, that seeming contradictions > between the varieties will be "aufgehoben" in a Hegelian dialectic sense > (raised, abolished) along with further inquiries to come. This means two > things: It is ok to temporally have a non-vague God-concept, and second the > dogma, that a religion must be non-exclusive, but open and tolerant to > other religions. On the other hand there may be religions which are not > based on synechism and agapism. But I guess, that the mystic parts of quite > all religions are based on universal concepts that resemble agapism and > synechism, eg. Sufism, Kabbala, Meister Eckhard, other than the prophetic > parts of eg. Islam, Judaism, Christianity. So maybe the dogma has to be > modified: Openness and tolerance towards other religions, except you should > never trust a prophet, not of the other religions, and neither of yours. > Best, > Helmut > > > 29. Oktober 2016 um 01:31 Uhr > "Gary Richmond" > > Clark, list, > > Clark wrote: > > > The more I think on it the more my own view is that Peirce’s process > approach to epistemology offers the best solution. Our beliefs are not > volitional. All we can do is inquire. If we really inquire carefully and > still believe, well that seems a good basis from which to believe (or > disbelieve) > > > The N.A. is, as I see it, an invitation to inquire in just this sense, > while Peirce strongly suggests that such an inquiry *will tend* to lead > to belief and not its opposite. > > As Peirce remarks, the meaning of 'God', being a vernacular word, is > necessarily vague. If that word is left vague. then it is possible to > inquire into it such that an *argument* for the reality (not the > existence, as Jon has repeated emphasized) can be developed. In the N.A. > Peirce makes clear that by "argument" he means "any process of thought > reasonably tending to produce a definite belief" (this opposed to its use > in normative logic where it means the inference from premises to a > conclusion: an argumentation). > > So, musement, he suggests, can give rise to an hypothesis (and, perhaps > later, a belief) that there is indeed a creator of the three Universes of > Experience, and that one will then be *struck by the beauty* of this > hypothesis, and by even the practical usefulness of it, especially in > guiding ones conduct in conformity to it, that is, supplying an i*deal to > ones conduct* in life. One will come to love this purely "hypothetical > God" and act lovingly in accordance with what follows from one's belief > (including love of ones brothers and sisters). > > And, further, it is belief in this God-hypothesis which offers > "plausibility" and coherence to the notion of three Universes of > Experience, offering "a thoroughly satisfactory explanation" of
Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
r utterly insoluble"; and what did he subsequently say is the result in this particular case? CSP: ... in the Pure Play of Musement the idea of God's Reality will be sure sooner or later to be found an attractive fancy, which the Muser will develop in various ways. The more he ponders it, the more it will find response in every part of his mind, for its beauty, for its supplying an ideal of life, and for its thoroughly satisfactory explanation of his whole threefold environment. (CP 6.465) Regards, Jon On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: Jon, list - I'm not into the intricacies of semantics - as are you, so if you object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus 'just plain impossible' - perhaps you should consider writing style and linguistic style that is particular to each person. The latter phrase isn't even in my vocabulary and you ignore that people express themselves in different phraseology and use different words and that not everyone expresses themselves in YOUR style of _expression_. Just because there is a 'long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of god' - is no proof or evidence for his existence/reality. That's a logical fallacy - to say that because such an argument has been around for a long time means that it's valid [argumentum ad antiquitatem]. There's a long history of debate for the existence of the devil, hell, purgatory, aliens, UFOs, witches, secret societies, and etc. Doesn't mean a thing. Your reasons - are beliefs. And as I said, I consider that such discussions belong in the smoke and rhetoric of the seminar room. There is no empirical or logical evidence. You wrote: 'There is always a 'certain amount of speculation'. WHAT? It is ALL speculation and it remains a 'strictly hypothetical God' 6.466. And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we are forced to recognize a given element in experience, it is reasonable to await positive evidence before we complicate our acknowledgment with qualifications'. [my emphasis]. Edwina - Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Helmut Raulien ; cl...@lextek.com ; Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut points out. And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls for an explanation. Why is there (now) something, rather than (still) nothing? ET: It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality. I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as almost impossible, rather than just plain impossible? ET: To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of God indicates otherwise. You may not find any of these "proofs" convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority. I have reasons for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you presumably have reasons for believing that God is not real. We can discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position is more rationally justified. ET: I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this physico-chemical existence of the Universe ... Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings. There is always a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse, or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does. CSP: But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not the business of science to search for origins." This maxim was a masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite word) man can inquire
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
rote: 'There is always a 'certain > amount of speculation'. WHAT? It is ALL speculation and it remains a > 'strictly hypothetical God' 6.466. > > And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, > "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we > are forced to recognize a given element in *experience*, it is reasonable > to *await positive evidence* before we complicate our acknowledgment with > qualifications'. [my emphasis]. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> ; cl...@lextek.com ; Peirce-L > <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > ET: The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as > Helmut points out. > > > And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls > for an explanation. Why is there (now) something, rather than (still) > nothing? > > ET: It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this > physico-chemical existentiality. > > > I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as *almost* > impossible, rather than just plain impossible? > > ET: To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator > [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is > no proof - logical or empirical. > > > The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of > God indicates otherwise. You may not find any of these "proofs" > convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor > that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of > the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority. I > have *reasons *for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you > presumably have *reasons *for believing that God is *not *real. We can > discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position > is more rationally justified. > > ET: I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this > physico-chemical existence of the Universe ... > > > Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly > because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings. There is always > a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any > cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse, > or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this > physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first > place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does. > > CSP: But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding > intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not > the business of science to search for origins." This maxim was a > masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would > dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his > breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into > what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite > word) man can inquire. (CP 6.460) > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the >> pre-universe is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to >> remain there for those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room. >> I don't. >> >> The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut >> points out. It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this >> physico-chemical existentiality. To suggest, as many have done, a >> metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either >> believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. >> >> We CAN empirically examine, however, the Three Categories within this >> physico-chemical existentiality; the state of Feeling of Firstness; the >> brute interaction of Secondoness; the development of habits of morphology >> of Thirdness. I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this >> physico-chemical existence of the Universe - and I, for one, don't see that >> the Categories were 'real' or operational in the assumed 'Nothingness' of >> the pre-univese. >> >> Edwina >> > - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon, list - I'm not into the intricacies of semantics - as are you, so if you object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus 'just plain impossible' - perhaps you should consider writing style and linguistic style that is particular to each person. The latter phrase isn't even in my vocabulary and you ignore that people express themselves in different phraseology and use different words and that not everyone expresses themselves in YOUR style of expression. Just because there is a 'long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of god' - is no proof or evidence for his existence/reality. That's a logical fallacy - to say that because such an argument has been around for a long time means that it's valid [argumentum ad antiquitatem]. There's a long history of debate for the existence of the devil, hell, purgatory, aliens, UFOs, witches, secret societies, and etc. Doesn't mean a thing. Your reasons - are beliefs. And as I said, I consider that such discussions belong in the smoke and rhetoric of the seminar room. There is no empirical or logical evidence. You wrote: 'There is always a 'certain amount of speculation'. WHAT? It is ALL speculation and it remains a 'strictly hypothetical God' 6.466. And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we are forced to recognize a given element in experience, it is reasonable to await positive evidence before we complicate our acknowledgment with qualifications'. [my emphasis]. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Helmut Raulien ; cl...@lextek.com ; Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:49 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut points out. And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls for an explanation. Why is there (now) something, rather than (still) nothing? ET: It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality. I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as almost impossible, rather than just plain impossible? ET: To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of God indicates otherwise. You may not find any of these "proofs" convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority. I have reasons for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you presumably have reasons for believing that God is not real. We can discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position is more rationally justified. ET: I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this physico-chemical existence of the Universe ... Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings. There is always a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse, or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does. CSP: But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not the business of science to search for origins." This maxim was a masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite word) man can inquire. (CP 6.460) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the pre-universe is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to remain there for those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room. I don't. The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, a
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Edwina, List: ET: The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut points out. And this is a matter of fact, which therefore (according to Peirce) calls for an explanation. Why is there (now) something, rather than (still) nothing? ET: It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality. I am genuinely curious--why do you characterize it as *almost* impossible, rather than just plain impossible? ET: To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. The long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of God indicates otherwise. You may not find any of these "proofs" convincing, but that does not entail that they are "pure rhetoric," nor that one's belief or disbelief in God is merely an arbitrary resolution of the will, and thus purely a manifestation of tenacity and/or authority. I have *reasons *for believing that God is real, as did Peirce; and you presumably have *reasons *for believing that God is *not *real. We can discuss those reasons, even if we never end up agreeing on which position is more rationally justified. ET: I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this physico-chemical existence of the Universe ... Well, we have been doing exactly that in this thread and others, mainly because Peirce did it quite a bit throughout his writings. There is always a certain amount of speculation involved, to be sure, but the point of any cosmological/transcendental argument--whether positing God, a multi-verse, or some other explanation--is to identify what was necessary for "this physico-chemical existence of the Universe" to come about in the first place, and to exhibit the degree of order and reasonableness that it does. CSP: But twenty years later, if you aspired to pass for a commanding intellect, you would have to pull a long face and declare that "It is not the business of science to search for origins." This maxim was a masterpiece, since no timid soul, in dread of being thought naive, would dare inquire what "origins" were, albeit the secret confessor within his breast compelled the awful self-acknowledgment of his having no idea into what else than "origins" of phenomena (in some sense of that indefinite word) man can inquire. (CP 6.460) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Edwina Taborskywrote: > I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the > pre-universe is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to > remain there for those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room. > I don't. > > The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut > points out. It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this > physico-chemical existentiality. To suggest, as many have done, a > metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either > believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. > > We CAN empirically examine, however, the Three Categories within this > physico-chemical existentiality; the state of Feeling of Firstness; the > brute interaction of Secondoness; the development of habits of morphology > of Thirdness. I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this > physico-chemical existence of the Universe - and I, for one, don't see that > the Categories were 'real' or operational in the assumed 'Nothingness' of > the pre-univese. > > Edwina > - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
I agree with Helmut. I think, for example, the nature of the pre-universe is a 'seminar-room debate' ; i.e., symbolic, and ought to remain there for those who enjoy the smoke and rhetoric of a seminar room. I don't. The universe is, after all, a physico-chemical existentiality, as Helmut points out. It is almost impossible to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality. To suggest, as many have done, a metaphysical non-existential creator [God] is pure rhetoric. You either believe it or don't believe it. There is no proof - logical or empirical. We CAN empirically examine, however, the Three Categories within this physico-chemical existentiality; the state of Feeling of Firstness; the brute interaction of Secondoness; the development of habits of morphology of Thirdness. I don't see that we can discuss what went on before this physico-chemical existence of the Universe - and I, for one, don't see that the Categories were 'real' or operational in the assumed 'Nothingness' of the pre-univese. Edwina - Original Message - From: Helmut Raulien To: cl...@lextek.com Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 12:01 PM Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology) List, I am wondering, whether it is helpful at all to ponder about "nothing", because I doubt that it can be more than a myth. Same with beginning, creation, tychism, and platonic ideas. I have the hypothesis, that reverse-engineering is not possible if you only have the status quo, and no symbolic second documentary. You can reverse-engineer the derivation of species, because you have the DNA of existing ones for symbolic documentary. But in the physicochemical realm there is no such documentary, not even the background radiation, which is not symbolic, but indexical. So, this is merely a hypothesis: Myths cannot be falsified or verified (demythicized) merely with indices and icons. Is that so?? Best, Helmut 25. Oktober 2016 um 17:43 Uhr "Clark Goble" <cl...@lextek.com> wr0ote: On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: Clark, List: At this point, it seems appropriate to shift this conversation to the spin-off thread that I started last week based on Ben Novak's post and the ones to which he was responding, which I have reproduced below. As we have previously discussed under the heading of Peirce's Cosmology, he explicitly referred to multiple "Platonic worlds" as one of the stages preceding the emergence of this actual universe of existence. I have suggested that the former correspond to the coalescing chalk marks on the blackboard, which then serve as a whiteboard for the "discontinuous mark" that represents the latter. I’m slowly working through the posts I missed. Allow me to repost the relevant quote. This is 6.202-209. I think you quoted the paragraph referring to platonism. (See the other quotes at the bottom of this post too that differ from this version) I’ll try to relate this to the other comments later this evening. However having the original sources undoubtedly helps the discussion. Permit me further to say that I object to having my metaphysical system as a whole called Tychism. For although tychism does enter into it, it only enters as subsidiary to that which is really, as I regard it, the characteristic of my doctrine, namely, that I chiefly insist upon continuity, or Thirdness, and, in order to secure to thirdness its really commanding function, I find it indispensable fully [to] recognize that it is a third, and that Firstness, or chance, and Secondness, or Brute reaction, are other elements, without the independence of which Thirdness would not have anything upon which to operate. Accordingly, I like to call my theory Synechism, because it rests on the study of continuity. I would not object to Tritism. And if anybody can prove that it is trite, that would delight me [in] the chiefest degree. All that I have been saying about the beginnings of creation seems wildly confused enough. Now let me give you such slight indication, as brevity permits, of the clue to which I trust to guide us through the maze. Let the clean blackboard be a sort of diagram of the original vague potentiality, or at any rate of some early stage of its determination. This is something more than a figure of speech; for after all continuity is generality. This blackboard is a continuum of two dimensions, while that which it stands for is a continuum of some indefinite multitude of dimensions. This blackboard is a continuum of possible points; while that is a continuum of possible dimensions of quality, or is a continuum of possible dimensions of a continuum of possible dimensions of quality, or something of that sort. There are no points on this blackboar
Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Jon, list, So my hypothesis should not become a dogma. Could it at least serve for counter-hypothesis, preventing the hypothesis of a nothing from becoming a dogma? Though we are not in a courtroom, where the best method, if you are sued, is to sue back somehow. Oops, I might have gone on a path of not-good discussion style here, sorry. I guess this happens when people talk about fundamental things... Dangerous! Best, Helmut 26. Oktober 2016 um 18:21 Uhr "Jon Alan Schmidt"wrote: Helmut, List: My guess is that Peirce would say that the existence of the universe is a matter of fact, and thus calls for an explanation; so we should not block the way of inquiry by ruling this out on a priori grounds, as you seem to be suggesting. However, he also would say that we should not be dogmatic about whatever explanation we devise, since he did not think that we should be dogmatic about anything. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote: List, I am wondering, whether it is helpful at all to ponder about "nothing", because I doubt that it can be more than a myth. Same with beginning, creation, tychism, and platonic ideas. I have the hypothesis, that reverse-engineering is not possible if you only have the status quo, and no symbolic second documentary. You can reverse-engineer the derivation of species, because you have the DNA of existing ones for symbolic documentary. But in the physicochemical realm there is no such documentary, not even the background radiation, which is not symbolic, but indexical. So, this is merely a hypothesis: Myths cannot be falsified or verified (demythicized) merely with indices and icons. Is that so?? Best, Helmut - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
Helmut, List: My guess is that Peirce would say that the existence of the universe is a matter of fact, and thus calls for an explanation; so we should not block the way of inquiry by ruling this out on *a priori* grounds, as you seem to be suggesting. However, he also would say that we should not be *dogmatic *about whatever explanation we devise, since he did not think that we should be dogmatic about *anything*. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Helmut Raulienwrote: > List, > I am wondering, whether it is helpful at all to ponder about "nothing", > because I doubt that it can be more than a myth. Same with beginning, > creation, tychism, and platonic ideas. I have the hypothesis, that > reverse-engineering is not possible if you only have the status quo, and no > symbolic second documentary. You can reverse-engineer the derivation of > species, because you have the DNA of existing ones for symbolic > documentary. But in the physicochemical realm there is no such documentary, > not even the background radiation, which is not symbolic, but indexical. > So, this is merely a hypothesis: Myths cannot be falsified or verified > (demythicized) merely with indices and icons. Is that so?? > Best, > Helmut > - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .